Most of the article claims that causal reasoning is impossible for computers. I would claim that is obviously false because there exist programs that do similar things.
However, I generally agree that computers will have a hard time writing good novels. If computers end up being able to simulate an entire world of humans, it should be possible to do anything humans can (intellectually) so nothing is truly impossible.
The best reason I see that computers will have a hard time writing novels (or any type of art) is because the purpose of a novel in most cases is to convey a human mental state. So in order to do so you have to convey it properly you have to understand human minds well. For humans this is pretty easy, you can use your on experience as a baseline. However, for a computer, it must watch people long enough to understand what is going on inside.
I also had this exact same thought, but after watching GPT-2 be a dungeon master, as long as there's causal and temporal consistency, the AI can generate some surprising and funny story lines that humans normally can not.
Stories don't really have to simulate human beings, just evoke engaging emotions in the reader. Very few fantasy novels actually teach anything meaningful.
However, I generally agree that computers will have a hard time writing good novels. If computers end up being able to simulate an entire world of humans, it should be possible to do anything humans can (intellectually) so nothing is truly impossible.
The best reason I see that computers will have a hard time writing novels (or any type of art) is because the purpose of a novel in most cases is to convey a human mental state. So in order to do so you have to convey it properly you have to understand human minds well. For humans this is pretty easy, you can use your on experience as a baseline. However, for a computer, it must watch people long enough to understand what is going on inside.